WP/25576/2005 of M/s. Neuland Laboratories Limited, Vs Teh Presiding Officer, on 28 December 2005

COMMON ORDER:

In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioner, which is an industrial establishment,challenges the orders passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in various industrialdisputes.

The workmen are impleaded as the second respondent in the respective writpetitions. They approached the Labour Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, alleging that they are governed by theprovisions of Chapter-V of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’) and that thewrit petitioner had adopted unfair labour practices in removing them from service.Reference was made to various developments that have resulted in, industrialunrest. Their complaint was that the writ petitioner violated Section 25(N) of the Act.

At the instance of the petitioner, the Labour Court framed preliminary issue, as towhether the industrial disputes raised by the respective workmen, are maintainableunder Section 2-A (2) of the Act. Through the impugned orders, the Labour Courtanswered the issue against the writ petitioner.

Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that theworkmen absented from the work unauthorisedly and in terms of relevant provisionsof law, the petitioner terminated their services, duly paying the compensationpayable to them. He contends that the Labour Court erred in passing the impugnedorders, holding that the petitions are maintainable under Section 2-A (2) of the Actand proceeding on the assumption that there was termination of the workmen fromthe service.

The learned Government Pleader for labour, on the other hand, submits that as longas it is not disputed that the workmen were employed with the petitioner, it cannot besaid that the petitions were not maintainable. He contends that the merits of thematter can be gone into at the regular trial of the matter.

The workmen raised disputes, before the labour Court, aggrieved by the terminationof services. The petitioner entered appearance, on receiving notice. At the instanceof the petitioner, the Labour Court framed a preliminary issue, viz., whether thepetition under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are maintainable at theinstance of the workmen, after they received compensation on retrenchment,whether they were estoped from raising such disputes. In a way it can be said thatthe question itself was not properly framed. While, the first part of it squarely falls inthe ambit of maintainability, the second part relates to the adjudication of the matteron merits. The maintainability of the petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Act wouldexclusively depend upon the existence or otherwise of the relationship between theemployer and the employee, between the parties to the dispute. The second part ofthe issue framed by the Labour court namely, whether the workmen were estopedfrom raising the dispute after receiving termination benefits, would be in the realm of adjudication of the matter on merits.

The record discloses that the workmen were very much on the rolls of the petitionerestablishment and that they were struck off from the rolls, may be on certain groundsof misconduct. Once it has emerged that the workmen were on the rolls of thepetitioner, it cannot be said that the petitions under Section 2-A (2) of the Act are notmaintainable. Therefore, the view taken by the Labour Court, to the effect that thepetitions are maintainable, cannot be found fault with. This Court does not find anyground to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court on the preliminary issue.

Conclusion

It is true that certain vague and general observations were made as to the factum oftermination etc. Such questions need to be answered by the Labour Court, afterrecording the evidence of both the parties and on appreciation of the respectivecontentions.

Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. The Labour Court is, however, directed toadjudicate the matter un-influenced by any observations made by it, on merits, in theorders under challenge. The parties shall be entitled to lead evidence and putforward all contentions in support of its plea.

__________

28.12.2005

mdaa.